§ 77. DUTY AS TO AGREEMENTS.

All agreements between counsel, whether they be oral or reduced to writing, should be equally obligatory upon each. It is not a sufficient excuse for failure to live up to the terms of an agreement that it was not really reduced to writing and therefore difficult of proof. Any promise or agreement that involves the personal honor of a lawyer cannot be too strictly fulfilled. A lawyer who proves himself worthy of the confidence of other attorneys will speedily find that he enjoys their confidence, but the lawyer whose recollection is faulty with respect to the terms of agreements made with other lawyers will as speedily find himself the object of distrust.

Hoffman's Resolutions, Resolve 9:

"Any promise or pledge made by me to the adverse counsel shall be strictly adhered to by me; nor shall the subsequent instructions of my client induce me to part from it, unless I am well satisfied it was made in error, or that the rights of my client would be materially impaired by its performance."

§ 78. NOT TO ABUSE FELLOW ATTORNEY FOR MERE EFFECT.

In making their plea to the jury, some lawyers feel called upon to abuse roundly all persons connected with the opposite side. In this sweeping

arraignment the opposing counsel is often included. It is either directly stated or left to be inferred that the opposing counsel is a conscienceless knave or he would never have taken the adversaries' case; or it may be that the accusation against him is that he is a party to a conspiracy to defraud the accuser's client.

Whatever form the accusation takes, it is, unless the circumstances strongly warrant it, reprehensible practice for one lawyer to abuse another for mere effect upon the jury. The end does not justify the means. During the progress of trial personalities between counsel are undignified and unprofessional. A scolding-match between two sarcastic lawyers may be amusing to the spectators, but it does not indicate that the contestants are well-balanced lawyers. But abuse heaped upon an opponent in a closing argument, at a time when he cannot reply, calls down just condemnation upon the speaker.

American Bar Association Code of Ethics, Canon 17:

"Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants. Whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between clients, it should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct and demeanor toward each other or toward suitors in the case. All personalities between counsel should be scrupulously avoided. In the trial of a cause it is indecent to allude to

the personal history or the personal peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of counsel on the other side. Personal colloquies between counsel, which cause delay and promote unseemly wrangling, should also be carefully avoided."

§ 79. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER.

It is a duty of a lawyer not to take a case of another lawyer unless he is to act as an associate, or unless the first lawyer has been dismissed from the case. If the first lawyer has been guilty of wrongdoing in the case, it is the right and the duty of another to take the case into his own hands, even against the other's objection. Competition among lawyers is unprofessional. The lawyer is under a duty not to disparage fellow attorneys. He is under a duty not to deal with the opposite party without the knowledge of his counsel. He is under a duty to protect the good name of the profession by exposing rascally practitioners. It is a lawyer's duty not to force trial when the opposing counsel is ill or under bereavement. He should not lay undue stress upon technicalities. He should not try to over-reach another lawyer through questionable practices. He should respect all agreements with counsel, whether such agreements be legally binding or not. He should not abuse a fellow attorney for mere effect.

SEC. 88.

Duty not to Argue Upon Matters not in Evidence.

SEC. 89.

Duty not to Offer Garbled Law.

SEC. 90.

Summary of Chapter.

$80. BASIS OF DUTIES.

1

In another connection it has been noted that an attorney is an officer of the courts. Through the gradual evolution of society he has become a necessary adjunct to the courts in the administration of justice. In a case that presents complex features, it has become necessary that one skilled in the law should represent each of the contesting parties, in order that their respective claims may be presented to the court, each in its strongest array, so that the judge may determine which side should prevail. This peculiar relation to the 1 See § 5.

courts is the basis of the duties hereinafter set forth.

§ 81. THE DUTY OF LOYALTY TO THE COURTS. Being an officer of the courts involves the duty of loyalty to the courts. It is improper, therefore, for the lawyer to disparage the system of justice. No human institution can be perfect, and there are few indeed that, even in our limited human wisdom, cannot be improved. But a judicial system that has not a basis of public sentiment behind it is not in the way of improvement, quite the reverse.

Thoughtless disparaging of the courts by attorneys has the effect of lessening the listener's respect for the court or courts in question. To say that a court is a farce and that the suitor with the longest purse is sure to win is to say that which is not true of any court. Exaggeration of faults that are quite generally known, but the extent of which is not known, except to the lawyers and judges, is to give to the public, not qualified to detect the exaggeration, a false and harmful impression.

It is rather the duty of lawyers, who necessarily mingle with the people more than do any other officials of the court, to speak fairly of the courts and to disseminate a healthy optimism concerning them. Lawyers may thus strengthen the hands